User talk:Ian.thomson/Archive 22

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Going out of town

My uncle is having surgery, so I'm going to be out of town for a week or so, and may not be in a position to respond to messages until then. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Going in a couple of hours, that is. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hope it goes ok. Dougweller (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It should be fine, barring the small chances that come with any surgery, but he never married so it's down to my family to watch him afterward. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Historicity of Jesus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Request for incorportion of a relevant webpage to Wikipedia Dartford site". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Back

Finally home. Surgery was done quickly, recovery took forever. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Good to have you back. Do you think Historicity of Jesus should go to ANI? I think it is probably at least close to past due myself. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It kinda did last week. I'm still getting settled (wheelchairs, luggage, car maintenance, and lack of sleep) and probably won't get involved in anything too heavy until tomorrow, so I'd probably be useless until then, but if you've got a good case (maybe with plenty of diffs), have at it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sleep. You've earned it. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How ridiculous and bias can you get

1) The original version which was painted in 1275 was in black/white and the wikipedia shows a colored version of 14th century portrait.

2) In Chinese historical sources including in Russia, it clearly mentions the portraits was drawn under supervision of Kublai Khan who would have known how Genghis Khan looked like

3) YET the wikipedia misleads people by adding un-sourced claims like " no accurate portrait of Genghis Khan exist " including adding un-sourced claims about him having red hair and blue eyes based on one persian historian who was born after 20 years after Genghis Khan died.

WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not care. Your additions plagiarized from the source you cited. That is stealing, it is illegal, and it will get you blocked if you keep it up. As I said, paraphrase your additions. Assume good faith and actually pay attention to the reasons why I reverted you. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'm sorry. I will just rephase ( NOT COPYING) with just a little bit similar. You have Chinese wikipedia and Russian wikipedia mentioning the portrait being supervised under Kublai Khan why the hell does this English wikipedia does the opposite and even add unsource claims about him having blue eyes and red hair? The part about I wrote " from the 14th century of Yuan dynasty Mongol court which depicts Genghis Khan with East Asian Mongol features " was NOT COPIED TEXT but the other part was indeed copied from the text. I will just rephrase it. WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese and Russian Wikipedias do not have any authority over the English Wikipedia. The different language Wikipedias do not have authority over each other. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

What is your reason for removing this

" Which is the portrait of Genghis Khan in the 14th century drawn by the Mongol court of Yuan dynasty during the rule of Kublai Khan, who was also oldest grandson of Genghis Khan. " It is basically contradicting the picture of Genghis Khan which says " Genghis Khan as portrayed in a 14th-century Yuan era album ". Kublai Khan was born in 1215, before Genghis Khan died at 1227 so he would have been at least up to 12 years old to see Genghis Khan

It doesn't require a source or reference because this is just a freaking basic commonsense. Unless you're telling me that the portrait of Genghis Khan wasn't drawn in the 14th century. Unless you're telling me China wasn't ruled by Mongol court Yuan dynasty, and it wasn't during the time of Kublai Khan.

WorldCreaterFighter (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary and on the talk page, every addition needs sources -- read WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY. It does not matter if something is true if it is not verified through citations -- see Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. The burden is on you to add citations for material you add. WP:VERIFY is one of the founding cite policies, so if you don't agree with it, you may want to write elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Request for incorportion of a relevant webpage to Wikipedia Dartford site, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Historicity of Jesus, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

List of claimants...

I noticed that after the fact, you beat me to the self-revert.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI revert

Re this, I know you're just trying to clean up but my recommendation is to let it stand. It'll help people see what the issue is and get to a resolution faster. Zad68 04:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

New ANI request concerning an editor you warned

WP:ANI#New editor with multiple problems, restoring copyvio, changing Yahweh to YHWH in perhaps 50 articles, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Was already typing my response. I don't mind getting him coming and going, I just woke up so I didn't feel like gathering the diffs until 3rrnb was over. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Please feel free to take part in discussion at the above article again he said in a far from subtle hint John Carter (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for some help on a controversial Page

Hello, was passed on to you by another user who said you could be helpful on the controversial page Dorje Shugden Controversy . It would be really nice to have some neutral editors there and especially ones who have dealt with things along these lines on Wikipedia in the past. Would you be willing to take a look and lend a hand? Particularly I have been trying to convey WP:Label in regards to a few choice allegations of practitioners of this Buddhist Deity as being members of a cult and explain that this is not appropriate but am being repeatedly reverted. There is lots of behavior there in general that is not appropriate (and I have definitely made mistakes too), so I would love any insight. Thank you! Prasangika37 (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

Not entirely sure what I did because I can't see the diffs which presumably indicate what the problem was and make it easier to apologize for those actions specifically but I do want to apologize for having clearly annoyed you. Sorry. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I was just out of town again yesterday, and asleep until couple hours ago is all; and then had to deal with a user (not you) who actually did annoy me (7 notifications in 13 hours!), and draft a game plan for an article overhaul. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

email

Hello, Ian.thomson. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

John Carter (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I will expect an apology

Once the check user technical whatever is completed, I will expect an apology from you on my talk page for the utterly scurrilous allegations you have made against me regarding fake accounts, sock puppetry etc. Or am I hoping for too much?TheFallenCrowd (talk) 18:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Provided, whatever the results are, you apologize regardless in an equally prominent place for disrupting the site with your temper tantrum over not being able to turn an article into a propaganda piece in favor of a neo-Nazi. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you hate him so much, why don't you ask for this article to be deleted?TheFallenCrowd (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't give a damn about Kemp or whether or not we have an article. You don't get it, do you? This site summarizes reliable sources regarding notable subjects. It is not the place for you to put up propaganda in favor of the guy. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

SPI's can prove sockpuppetry. They can't prove you haven't sockpuppeted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well let's see what the results are then. Will you apologize to me if it shows there has been no sock puppetry? Or am I hoping in vain for some honesty here?TheFallenCrowd (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If you want honesty, start with yourself. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

TheFallenCrowd has been trying to get Kemp's article deleted for a while. CU doesn't normally link IPs to users, so it's very unlikely that there will be a CU finding, but the IP was obvious. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know about him trying to get the article censored, but yeah, I set the condition on my hypothetical apology because I know damn well it's not happening. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Pontiac's War

I don't think it is appropriate to emphasize an alleged atrocity by the British in the intro without mentioning all the alleged atrocities by the Indians. It is highly POV. It is not "whitewashing" to want to be as objective and neutral as possible and not pick historical sides. Let's not whitewash the British nor the Indians as they were both brutal warriors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.190.118 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

See WP:GEVAL. At any rate, how is it not whitewashing to remove information based on multiple sources that are accepted history? How is it not whitewashing to reduce actions with proof of intention to "alleged" incidents? And (according to academic secondary or tertiary sources) what compares to the biological warfare? The article has a plethora of secondary sources that rather demonstrate intent by the British to spread smallpox with the express purpose of trying to wipe out the Native Americans. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Accepted history? That's a laugh. What is accepted: yes there was an attempt by Trent at Fort Pitt. What is NOT accept: that it actually worked. And let's not forget the brutal practices of the Natives or are we just going to leave those out to make your simplistic narrative of the evil white man correct. You can keep telling yourself this but history is brutally obvious that there were no innocent in Pontiac's war. Read: Parkman, Francis. The conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian war after the conquest of Canada. Vol. 2. Little, Brown and company, 1898. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.190.118 (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest you read Daniel Paul We Were Not the Savages for another pov regarding native conduct vs. European conduct in the wars. Paul does note that white historians have defended Amherst despite he and Bouquet saying exactly what they thought about what they were doing and whom they were doing it to. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, IP, so you've got a book from the century before last (really up-to-date scholarship there!), and one that denies the correlation between his plan to infect the Native Americans and the smallpox epidemic a few months later with the idiotic reasoning "oh, we want to like him, and that seems mean."

And I'm not pushing a POV that white men are evil, I'm preventing you from carrying out a white supremacist POV. Being a Scottish-American myself, I'll attest that white people, like any other people, are just people. I will not try to hide genocide because it was carried out by someone white, however. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"White supremacist" is a rather serious accusation and it is objectively bad form to accuse contributors of being "white supremacist" unless you can substantiate this. Namecalling lumping even anonymous cowards with the World Church of the Creator, the Peckerwoods, and the Klan because they disagree with you on emphasis or wording is far out of line and a clear policy violation.Bkalafut (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Dude, I am trying to work with you and you don't even look at my edits, you just revert. Wikipedia is about consensus. It is amazing that because I say both sides committed atrocities, you claim that I'm a white supremacist. I cite a century old book because it covers the atrocities of the Native Americans, which is not disputed history, and is currently cited and used by modern historians time and again. Ex: Konkle, Maureen. Writing Indian Nations: Native Intellectuals and the Politics of Historiography, 1827-1863. Univ of North Carolina Press, 2004. Poupard, James A., and Linda A. Miller. "History of biological warfare: catapults to capsomeres." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 666.1 (1992): 9-20. Dixon, David. Never come to peace again: Pontiac's uprising and the fate of the British empire in North America. Vol. 7. University of Oklahoma Press, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.225.190.118 (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you've cited titles. Do you have page numbers? Because that's generally standard for citations. And where have I said that there were innocents? Yes, both sides killed people, but the Brits were the ones to use biological warfare.

You're continuously downplaying what is so obvious a fact that Helen Keller could see it from the International Space Station while facing the other way, accusing the multiple editors who revert you of trying to push the view that white people are evil -- that stinks of a "pro-white" POV, not balance (which we don't do, anyway).

If you wanted to cooperate, you'd pay attention to multiple editors reverting you, and you wouldn't have edit warred over this. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I just figured I'd let you know that: a) I'm a gal and b) I'm Roma-American. So your whole "pro-white" attitude is very offensive given how my people have suffered. Nazis put them in concentration camps in the past. Now, draconian systems of government are used to punish the Roma, deport them, take their children away on accusations of child-theft. Lol and behold, you tried to use wikipedia's draconian system of rules and admins to silence me. In my interest in American history, I like to get an accurate & fair understanding. I am quite aware of the evil-white man narrative that continues to be pushed to get minority votes for megalomaniacs today. History is full of brutality no matter the ethnicity, no matter the color of skin. You obviously didn't want to work with me, so you hide behind your rules. Rules and more rules, just want the world doesn't need. The Nazis adhered to rules. No wonder wikipedia has a gal problem. The first instinct is to attack and revert and block rather than work together. Go ahead and silence and persecute other people with your rules, you won't do so anymore with me. Peace out folks. EvergreenBean (talk) 11:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Ian, the following two edits are unacceptable personal attacks, particularly the second one: [1] and [2]. You may have an opinion of the IP's motives based on their reverts and comments, but you simply don't have enough evidence to say what you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)